On a Method for Correct Philosophizing

I have been thinkning about a proper method for the past few days concerning the way in which to approach philosophy, and to philosophize as well. It might appear obvious to others, whereas it might not to a greater group of people on the forum. Well here it is:

I. On the parts of the method.
A. Logic - Symbolic Logic in particular.
B. An Understanding of the History of Western Philosophy.

We recognize immediately that the aforementioned approach has been completed through the parts themselves; but the parts do not end our goal, for we need to work at philosophizing as well. As to my choices for the parts they are still broad in a sense, as anyone can say that they have an understanding of the history of western philosophy, but only in a limited way. They might have only dusted off the choicest bits on which they come to only vaguely acquaint themselves with a 2600 year old history. To such a gentlemen I would have to disagree with them when they state that their "understanding" is sufficient for the method I am soon to present, because my method requires the whole of western philosophy, and not simply scattered parts.

Logic is another important, if not neccessary, part for the method itself, as it allows us to not only structure our thoughts, but do so properly without falling into invalidity (I reserve "valid" as a term that regards the mere form of an argument, and not whether it is true or false). I consider Logic the science upon which philosophy gives unto itself a proper foundation; but this is something that I will not contend for at present. What remains is the necessity of the part itself as an assumption to the method.

Immediately one might object to the parts, in particular part B. They might say that Western Philosophy is too much to take in all at once, better still throughout the course of ones life. In essence it would be a burden to exhaustively go through the annals of Western Philosophy and read every one who has contributed to the subject proper. This objection will be answered with the presentation of the method itself.

So far we have emphasized, albeit briefly, the parts themselves; let us now look at the method:

II. On a Method for Correct Philosophizing
A. Elucidation of questions that have been brought out throughout the history of Western Philosophy.
B. Answers to those questions and the discarding of irrelevant ones.

With the method presented, in its simplicity (to avoid any difficulty), it should come at no surprise to the reader. Philosophy, aside from its foundation in Logic, has at its core questions that cannot be sufficiently answered (or questions that we do not think can be answered). But this begs the question, as we pressupose that these questions cannot be anwered simply because we know they cannot. To this we assent to a level of knowing what we cannot know, and to which the aforementioned method, in its barest, roughest, form, comes in. It serves as a way to answer the questions which we plead ingnorance to, and, in so doing, we further clarify what it is that needs answered.

Returning now to the objection above: I will concede to the point that there is too much information to take in when dealing with the history of Western Philosophy. But what the method does is elucidate questions that have arisen throughout this history and answer them, by means of logic and ingenuity. In short, once we have answered a question, we no longer need to go back to it, at least until another question presents itself so as to destroy or make useless the previous one. In essence, philosophy is a lifetime of work that needs constant revision by one individual and through others. But we must be precise in clarifying our thoughts, so as to not endanger ourselves into accepting vague ideas and substance-less verbiage. In otherwords, my method is to avoid jugglery of the highest rank.

This is just the beginning and I am sure there are problems with the method itself. Perhaps others will come along (you the reader) and try to improve, in a mutual way, what I and many others throughout the history of Western Philosophy have tried to accomplish. To this I recieve warmly the criticisms that are bound to follow, and the improvements that are consequently to be made. Thank you for your time.

Philosophy usually involves humans, as in thoughts by humans about things involving humans, by that it's very essential to take account for psycology, philosophy without a grain of psycology often fails.

Philosophy usually involves humans, as in thoughts by humans about things involving humans, by that it's very essential to take account for psycology, philosophy without a grain of psycology often fails.

On what premise does it fail? I find it very hard to see philosophy failing without the aid of psychology. But I am curious as to your insight.

I'm curious how one would determine the relevance of a question -- it would be really beneficial if there was some success in so doing, I'm just at a loss for building some framework by which one can judge good questions from bad ones.

Something that I think might be missing from your list is II. (C) Dialectic. It seems to me that debate between two positions (or more, if you like), or at least the attempt to show arguments from others as flawed in some way (whether it be through ridicule, praise intermixed with pointing out the fatal flaw, or simply stating the logical holes in an argument without malice) is something I encounter in philosophy all the time.

On what premise does it fail? I find it very hard to see philosophy failing without the aid of psychology. But I am curious as to your insight.

Just such thing as warfare, there are much philosophy.
Some of the earliest philosophers was Sun Tzu, he would speficly tell how to motivate troops, how they would behave in different situations, and very importaintly keep the good will of the lands, even if it's in enemy terretory ..etc ..etc.
Sun Tzu's principles of war are no different than buisness, sports, politics ..etc, therefore modern advisors/spindoctors will indeed apply his teachings to their professions.

Karl Marx Imo didn't take account for long term consequenses of his teachings, why it ultimately failed, because advanced psycology just wasn't researched enough at that point of time, though much what he wrote sounded appealing on paper, it just wasn't good enough irl.

It isn't just intelligent people who will read the philosophy, there are psycotics, skitzophrenic, idiots, retards ..etc, and all will interpet writings in vastly different way, therefore if the specific philosophy are directed at the masses, it's VERY importaint to know the consequenses of your writings, as many will simply not understand the higher learning nor deeper meaning.

I'm curious how one would determine the relevance of a question -- it would be really beneficial if there was some success in so doing, I'm just at a loss for building some framework by which one can judge good questions from bad ones.

Something that I think might be missing from your list is II. (C) Dialectic. It seems to me that debate between two positions (or more, if you like), or at least the attempt to show arguments from others as flawed in some way (whether it be through ridicule, praise intermixed with pointing out the fatal flaw, or simply stating the logical holes in an argument without malice) is something I encounter in philosophy all the time.

This is already pressuposed in the method. When applying the method on questions brought up throughout the history of Western Philosophy, we immediately use a dialectical method by comparing other answers to the question and making note of any flaws. This leads us to a new elucidation of the question, and perhaps and answer for it.

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 01:22 PM ----------

HexHammer;172137 wrote:

Just such thing as warfare, there are much philosophy.
Some of the earliest philosophers was Sun Tzu, he would speficly tell how to motivate troops, how they would behave in different situations, and very importaintly keep the good will of the lands, even if it's in enemy terretory ..etc ..etc.
Sun Tzu's principles of war are no different than buisness, sports, politics ..etc, therefore modern advisors/spindoctors will indeed apply his teachings to their professions.

Karl Marx Imo didn't take account for long term consequenses of his teachings, why it ultimately failed, because advanced psycology just wasn't researched enough at that point of time, though much what he wrote sounded appealing on paper, it just wasn't good enough irl.

It isn't just intelligent people who will read the philosophy, there are psycotics, skitzophrenic, idiots, retards ..etc, and all will interpet writings in vastly different way, therefore if the specific philosophy are directed at the masses, it's VERY importaint to know the consequenses of your writings, as many will simply not understand the higher learning nor deeper meaning.

But what does this have to do with philosophy failing without Psychology? I honestly dont see the premisses youre trying to use to make philosophy fail without psychology. You have simply told me that Sun Tzu used psychological methods that are still useful today, that Karl Marx's philosophy fails because of the selfishness of humans, and that psychologically unstable people will not understand me.

The only premise that is worth considering is the Karl Marx one. But this does not mean that the whole of philosophy fails simply because of Marx not taking into account the selfishness of humans. But philosophy proper should not blend into psychology in any way. If anything we need to get as far away as possible.

I try not to convey any deeper meaning: I simply wish to be clear in expressing my thoughts (if ever a thing could be done).

The scope of a QUESTION what it really asks always points to a precise object, a target optimized answer, or a thing, if the question itself is properly done and makes sense...same is to say that such and every question targets an understanding through our needs and for those needs rather then the nature of what is aiming to understand alone, which in itself has a Universal holistic scope of togetherness with everything else, depending on the full interaction with all elements at once as a monad...its nature is therefore crafted from this holistic soup and does not have to my view any particular meaning.

Questioning is at this light a simple matter of conformity between something that wonders and lacks, and something else that is, considering granted that from it, what is to be known, results of such interaction and cannot be on the last mentioned variable alone, once the true final target is in us even if trough it...

Knowledge as a symbol, its a bridge with two linked ends, representing a specific form of union, or an algorithm, on the dynamics of two entity's that relate...
same is to say that knowledge is nothing about any of them alone or in the "thing" in its full related nature to be more precise, being it the questioner or the thing or whatever is to be asked...

Questioning and knowing has therefore a role, an aiming target, that to be true and satisfy, has to be personnel and private to each individual in its search of wisdom...

But what does this have to do with philosophy failing without Psychology? I honestly dont see the premisses youre trying to use to make philosophy fail without psychology. You have simply told me that Sun Tzu used psychological methods that are still useful today, that Karl Marx's philosophy fails because of the selfishness of humans, and that psychologically unstable people will not understand me.

Then you are blind to thousands of years of history.

Why does the western cast their lot with USA? Because they want to ally themselves with a humanistic regime, contrary a bloody regime as the commies, who doesn't have any qualms sending millions to labour camps ..and die, Sun Tzu warned about such ill behaviour.

Marx introduced the plane economy model, which was a utterly disaster, along with everything else he wrote.

Ding_an_Sich;172140 wrote:

The only premise that is worth considering is the Karl Marx one. But this does not mean that the whole of philosophy fails simply because of Marx not taking into account the selfishness of humans. But philosophy proper should not blend into psychology in any way. If anything we need to get as far away as possible.

Even this so called "negative" elements may ad diversity of perspective and some good to Philosophy if not to empprehend or to take a linear black and white type of approach to it..."noise" if and when not overwhelming, brings diversity from apparent chaos and deconstruction renewing the order and form of our understanding with new paradigms...

Even this so called "negative" elements may ad diversity of perspective and some good to Philosophy if not to empprehend or to take a linear black and white type of approach to it..."noise" if and when not overwhelming, brings diversity from apparent chaos and deconstruction renewing the order and form of our understanding with new paradigms...

What do you think ?

In a scenario involving humans, these factors are very conterproductive, only known posetive factor are psycotic leaders who will "inspire" other people to do greater feats.

She probaly was, not entirely sure, but all that voice thing seems to fit the bill.

Fil. Albuquerque;172200 wrote:

...destruction, even of what was good and properly build, at least has the merit of afterwards making space for new approaches and fresh thinking...

...considering that every time has its own paradigms and beliefs which obviously have to be rebuild and rediscovered for every new generation that comes on only bring us to realize that processes of deconstruction like noise or destruction, as part of a bigger larger process, are merely the quickest way to bring on the new or to renew the old...

Alot of metaphors, yet no specific details that translate to any everyday use.

If I'm flying a jumbo jet, I need very detailed information of how to fly this airplane, not just some general philosophacally metaphors, then I would surely crash along with the crew of hundrets of civilians.

Fil: ..fly over there, somewhere..

Hex: I need excat coordinates

Fil: ..just fly daminit!

Hex Oo ..eeeh?

Fil: !!!!

Hex: I only have so much fuel, I can't keep poking around in random directions!

Why does the western cast their lot with USA? Because they want to ally themselves with a humanistic regime, contrary a bloody regime as the commies, who doesn't have any qualms sending millions to labour camps ..and die, Sun Tzu warned about such ill behaviour.

Marx introduced the plane economy model, which was a utterly disaster, along with everything else he wrote.

Why dont you stop being fallacious and get back to the argument at hand instead of digressing to how the United States is doing such-and-such. I could care less what they are doing, as that does not concern the thread as well as lacking in contribution to what I presented. You have still yet to show me, with sufficient proof, why philosophy fails without the aid of psychology. If you cannot do this, or critique my method, then leave. Unless of course you are trying to critique my method by inadvertently "failing" philosophy. Stay on topic!

I would argue that dialectic is the heart of philosophy, and that the rest derives from this. In my view, logic is best practiced as the study of the structure of human thought. However, I recognize the value of normative logic. It's just that normative logic is not a settled thing, in my mind, and is subject to dialectical investigation. If we examine our own minds and lives, I think we will see dialectic, the clash of ideas. I suggest that we have an itch for coherence, philosophers moreso than others.

Symbolic logic is a beautifully efficient way to formalize what in my mind are ultimately intuitions. What is tautology? How do we recognize or conceive of tautology? Why does A = A ? I agree with Wittgenstein that identity doesn't need an operator. A symbol is already an identity. What is at the bottom of this? What makes human symbolism like this possible? How does a mark like "A" successfully stand in for what "A" means? What does A mean, in a case like this?

I argue that dialectic and coherence are crucial factors. I also suggest that beauty, which I relate to coherence, is more related to truth than is usually recognized.

Why dont you stop being fallacious and get back to the argument at hand instead of digressing to how the United States is doing such-and-such. I could care less what they are doing, as that does not concern the thread as well as lacking in contribution to what I presented. You have still yet to show me, with sufficient proof, why philosophy fails without the aid of psychology. If you cannot do this, or critique my method, then leave. Unless of course you are trying to critique my method by inadvertently "failing" philosophy. Stay on topic!

What you fail to see, is what I provide is intelligent philosophy.
What you want are pretty naive methaphors, which essentially is poetry, which has little to do with reality.

If I'm flying a jumbo jet, I need very detailed information of how to fly this airplane, not just some general philosophacally metaphors, then I would surely crash along with the crew of hundrets of civilians.

Fil: ..fly over there, somewhere..

Hex: I need excat coordinates

Fil: ..just fly daminit!

Hex Oo ..eeeh?

Fil: !!!!

Hex: I only have so much fuel, I can't keep poking around in random directions!

Tryed M$-FS like a bit over a decade ago ..crash ..crash ..cry! My spatial navigation sucks too much for such game.

Ok tbh, it may just be me who are too stupid to harvest the fruits of your wods in this.

Fil. Albuquerque;172200 wrote:

...destruction, even of what was good and properly build, at least has the merit of afterwards making space for new approaches and fresh thinking...

...considering that every time has its own paradigms and beliefs which obviously have to be rebuild and rediscovered for every new generation that comes on only bring us to realize that processes of deconstruction like noise or destruction, as part of a bigger larger process, are merely the quickest way to bring on the new or to renew the old...

What you fail to see, is what I provide is intelligent philosophy.
What you want are pretty naive methaphors, which essentially is poetry, which has little to do with reality.

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 08:42 PM ----------

HexHammer;172323 wrote:

Ok tbh, it may just be me who are too stupid to harvest the fruits of your wods in this.

It was not me who started on debating plane simple tautological truths...my comment was intended to be simple on an actually quite easy issue to comment...

Hey Hex, give it a go on FSX now, it will be worth your time I promise you ! :poke-eye:

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 08:52 PM ----------

The difference between sheer Information and true knowledge is build precisely on the renewal of the knowing process from generation to generation by making ours what others came to learn on themselves and try to teach us, very much in vain I must say...what is hard to get on that ?

...get straight to the point and leave metaphors on my navigational skills or the dam woods for another thread if you please...